In recent years, there's been a popular saying: "Looks are everything". This saying does not align with our traditional values of diligence and hard work. However, it is a reflection of the image era in which we live. In the era of agriculture and industrial economies, workers were measured by the physical products they produced, and appearance played a very small role. However, in the post-industrial era, people's main consumption targets are services, commercial advertisements, entertainment products and so on. Objects and people alike are stimulated most directly and quickly by looks.

Beauty is undoubtedly a form of capital, yet few industries can directly capitalise on it. I want to talk about the fashion industry, which sets the standards of beauty in society as a whole. It has such an impact because it is a system of production and operation. This book is about the fashion industry's production of beauty as a form of cultural economy.

This book is written by Ashley Mills, a young sociologist at Boston University. But she once had an even more interesting identity: that of a frontline model. While studying for her doctorate in sociology at New York University, Mills was sitting in a Starbucks in downtown Manhattan one day when a talent scout sitting across from her gave her his business card. The scout told her she had the appearance to make a lot of money. As a sociology student, Mills was determined to study the world of modelling from within the fashion industry to gain a deeper understanding of how the modelling industry works and how aesthetic rules are formed. While it was unclear whether she would be able to earn any money, she had a topic for her doctoral thesis, so she accepted the scout's invitation. She spent more than two years in London and New York, nailing auditions, killing it on the catwalk and walking in shows while conducting ethnographic research. She interviewed 33 agency employees, 40 models and 40 clients. In this context, the term "clients" refers to designers, photographers, magazine editors, stylists, and show directors, as well as other individuals who hire models.

After more than two years of personal experience, Mills was certain that the modelling industry is indeed a cruel one. The clients are inscrutable, the agents are fickle, and the models rely on their bodies and looks to make a living – it's as simple as that. But apart from being skinny, they have absolutely no idea what other appearance standards there are. This is a place where the winners take all. A few are lucky enough to hit the jackpot and reach the pinnacle of fashion overnight, while everyone else is doomed to failure. They frequently have to work for other people, are paid a pittance, and may even end up in debt at the end of the year. They work until they retire with faint hopes. But when will they retire? I am 26 years old.

But at the end of her two-year career, Mills was determined to deconstruct the industry. While she was in it, she felt a sense of awe. The fashion industry is strikingly similar to the literary and art circles. There is a systematic operation, huge fame and wealth, as well as heartfelt beliefs and persistence. While studying the social and economic logic of producing beauty, Mills could always feel the special magic of the fashion industry. She records in meticulous detail how she routinely hides her age, how she presents different personalities according to different interviews, and the excitement of receiving a big show notice and the sting of a failed interview. These first-hand experiences add a lot of charm to her book. They also make people realise that although models have a special identity, they still have the same appearance anxiety and social anxieties as the rest of us. The modelling industry just has more sociological phenomena concentrated in it.

I will now explain the main content of this book to you. First, I will explain what kind of beauty the modelling industry produces and what factors determine this beauty. Next, I will explain the role of fashion producers, including models, agencies and various clients, in this market. Finally, it is about how fashion appearance reflects class, race and gender culture.

Let's move on to Part 1. I'm sure you remember what the scout said when he discovered Mills. He said, "You have good looks." This seemingly ordinary sentence immediately hit the core concept of the fashion model industry: looks.

The English word for looks is "look", which is not the same as "beauty". Look is a noun derived from a verb, and its beauty is fleeting. At the beginning of the 20th century, the first designer to use real models definitively stated that the hallmark of a good model is to have an "instant quality". This indescribable quality is the model's appearance. There are, of course, some basic requirements for this appearance. Models must conform to basic Western aesthetics: they must be young, fair-skinned, with healthy teeth and symmetrical facial features. Female models must be at least 1.75 metres tall with measurements close to 34-24-34 inches, while male models must be between 1.83 and 1.9 metres tall with a waist measurement of around 32 and a chest measurement of between 39 and 40. This is a common formula in the modelling industry, but it is not enough to just meet this formula.

I want to know what words the fashion industry uses to describe appearance. These terms – edgy, chic, strong – all describe a certain feeling, style or temperament. However, it is difficult to identify them objectively. It is wrong to judge a model's appearance based on the model itself. Appearance is not something that a person is born with, and its connotations are vague and fluid. A fashionable appearance is a work of art. It is not the function that is sold, but the form. Pricing is highly subjective and often depends on the appreciation of critics, intermediaries and consumers, or even on a whim. The pricing of works of art is about dealing with various relationships. The same is true of fashionable appearances. The value of an appearance is determined by a series of social relationships and conventions. An appearance is meaningful only when viewed within this production network.

I'll show you what this production network looks like. The fashion industry is part of the cultural economy, which provides consumers with the decorative, entertainment, emotional and social needs they desire. Art, music, television, film and fashion are all commodities in the cultural economy. They are highly aesthetic and symbolic, with high symbolic meaning and emotional value but low practical value. They ignite a passion and fantasy about life, but they are not responsible for making it come true. Consider the fashion advertisements. The more high-end they are, the less they mention specific beauty effects, materials, sizes, colours, etc. – it's as simple as that. Instead, they deliberately create an atmosphere of mystery and ambiguity, like a dream. And yes, fashion is about dreaming.

The fashion industry must reconcile two sets of logic: the logic of artistic creation, which prioritises creativity and independence, and the logic of business, which focuses on market demand and returns. If the two logics cannot be integrated, they will operate separately. There are two types of fashion circles. The first is the commercial fashion circle, which pursues short-term financial returns. Its main activities are shooting catalogues or various advertisements for daily necessities, electronic products, commercial clothing, etc. The second is the media fashion circle. Its workers produce what are often called "works". Their goal is to appear on high-end catwalks, in magazines and in luxury brand campaigns to create the new season's fashion trends. Media fashion producers aren't in it for the money. They're after fame. This fame is not directly linked to money, but it will undoubtedly lead to huge financial rewards in the long term. This is the most common gamble in the fashion world, without a doubt.

What do these two different fashion circles mean for models? Firstly, they offer different rewards. Media fashion offers symbolic rewards, while commercial fashion offers financial rewards. This leads to the first paradox of the fashion world: you cannot have fame and fortune. i-D magazine in London is a highly reputable media client, but models are not paid for i-D shoots. The magazine does not reimburse travel expenses, and models have to pay £10 just to get a copy of the magazine after the shoot.

However, those involved in media fashion are not in it for the money. It's a simple fact that $150 from Vogue is far more meaningful than $1,500 from a department store. The sociologist of classical modernity Simmel was clear: money has an "empty quantitative nature". He was saying that a large sum of money has a significance that goes beyond the number itself because large numbers stimulate our imagination. But here, the significance of a small sum of money undeniably transcends its numerical value. Small amounts have huge symbolic value. It is not the quantity but the social significance of the act of payment that counts. This logic dictates that the payment is irrelevant, even if it is not money. Many models are given gifts after fashion shows, including sample clothes, jewellery and vouchers. The author, Mills, has received many such things. Her father saw the sample T-shirt she brought home and said, "You could buy a cup of coffee with an extra dollar."

The financial rewards for media work are low, but the reputation you gain is high. Agencies and models are willing to take this risk. Securing a job with a luxury brand is a career highlight for any model. The salary is often in the millions and can continue for several years. However, commercial work such as print advertisements, catalogues, and TV commercials, while providing good short-term pay, is not a reliable source of income for agencies or models. Once a model takes on too many of these commercial jobs, her value in the fashion industry decreases. It is almost impossible for her to return to the world of high-end fashion.

The second paradox of the fashion industry is about appearance. Let me be clear: high-end appearances are not good-looking, and good-looking appearances are not high-end.

Media appearances are created for fashion editors, stylists and fashion insiders. Commercial appearances, on the other hand, are for mass consumption. Commercial models and media models are physically different. Commercial models are older and larger, with sizes ranging from 2 to 6, while media models are sized 0 to 4. There are different types of commercial models, but they all conform to traditional aesthetics and are considered gentle and classic. The most popular type of female model is the girl-next-door type, while male models are expected to be handsome and upright, close to the image of the ideal boyfriend. Media models must have a unique, unusual and avant-garde appearance. This avant-garde quality is, in fact, irregular and eccentric. In addition to being young and super thin, the term "avant-garde" also has some vague meanings. It is often on the border between beauty and ugliness, looking familiar but also strange. Some have a sickly appearance, as if they are constantly high; some have strange facial features, looking like aliens; some have a world-weary face; and some are known for their asexual style. They look strange and unappealing at first, but you can't take your eyes off them.

I want to know how you can explain these two paradoxes. The fashion industry is clear in its belief that media models create brand identity and convey prestige, while commercial models merely transport goods. This phenomenon in the fashion industry is undoubtedly in line with Bourdieu's description of "cultural fields". Let me explain. A field is a social space where capital, resources and power are contested. In the cultural field, economic and political capital and cultural capital are in a relationship of mutual exclusion. This is the unique operating logic. Artists are indifferent to material gain. They put art in opposition to money, power, politics, religion and morality. This behaviour not only marks the autonomy of art, but also accumulates cultural capital.

In both the fashion and art fields, the more popular a product is, the lower its reputation. When something becomes ubiquitous, it is bound to be phased out. The world of modelling is the perfect example of the classic tension between art and commerce. Art is above the materialistic market and carries the authority of the spiritual world. Branding allows credibility to be transferred to products. The media deliberately avoids the public to maintain its unassailable status. Luxury brands act as a shield for cheap consumer goods, while also giving handbags, perfumes and high heels cultural authority and credibility. These strange shapes are significant.

However, fashion cannot survive without economic capital. We know that catwalks don't generate profits. So, where does the money come from? The answer is simple: it's an expensive public relations tool that brands use to build their image and expand their influence. While it doesn't make money, putting on a big show can create an image for perfumes, bed linen, sunglasses, and other products that really make money. A well-run show will bring a brand media exposure, financial support, global franchises, and so on. A $10,000 dress in the haute couture collection offers a slim profit margin for the brand, but the designer's ready-to-wear collection can reach a substantial 25% to 50%. There's no doubt about it: you can make even higher profits on bed sheets, candles, and even mineral water. The fashion industry is built on creating an atmosphere and maintaining its value. This is the task of high-end appearance.

Part 2 has set out the two circles of the fashion model industry and the two paradoxes they contain. I will now explain how fashion producers, including models, agents and clients, work. Fashion appearance is not a personal trait but a social product like a work of art. There are no objective standards, so the model market is volatile. New faces from last season may be forgotten next season. This high degree of ambiguity and uncertainty is simply a fact of life in the fashion industry.

Models must constantly adjust their bodies and emotions to navigate this ambiguity. Mills was 23 years old with measurements of 31, 25, and 35.5 when she signed. However, her agent deliberately altered the information on her resume, writing 18 years old, 32, 24.5, and 34.5. To be clear, the bust size was written in slightly larger figures, while the waist and hip measurements were written in slightly smaller figures. These measurements must be changed when dealing with different types of clients. Models must constantly adjust to this virtual ideal figure because the standards fluctuate and are difficult to achieve. This leads to a lack of satisfaction with one's figure and a tendency to feel frustrated and disgusted with one's body.

It is a fact that many women have similar experiences. They are the object of observation and this has a negative effect on their self-esteem. This observation, whether it is praise, criticism or silence, inevitably leads to an evaluation. This kind of observation and evaluation is called "gazing" by the French theorist Michel Foucault. Gazing is a powerful control mechanism. Those who are always being gazed at will, over time, begin to censor and monitor themselves. They will also begin to voluntarily change themselves and put themselves at the mercy of others. Models are in the business of showing themselves off, and anyone who works in this field, from dancers to entertainers to athletes, knows their bodies are on display and open to scrutiny. They think about how they look to others, and this gaze has become part of how they see themselves.

Appearance is only one part of a person's image. Temperament is the other part. Models must have a standard figure and construct a unique self. This is part of their job. This is what is known as emotional labour in sociological terms – the work of shaping appearance through the modification of personality. Sociologist Hochschild wrote a book called Emotion Regulation. The Commercialization of Human Feeling is a definitive account of how workers manage and display their emotions at work. This kind of labour is something that every member of society has to do. It is particularly typical in the modelling industry.

What kind of personality is required to be a good model? A senior practitioner in the industry will tell you: be outgoing and optimistic, sensitive and confident, and be able to express the right emotions at any time; be willing to work, but not too eager; be very motivated, but also make people feel that you are naturally carefree; and definitely have a personality, but never let your emotions get the better of you. In short, you need to be optimistic, hardworking and adaptable. I believe this would be suitable for other industries as well. The term "personality" is often misunderstood. It is not simply a personal trait; it is a social self-presentation. Models demonstrate that they can present different aspects of themselves in different situations, maintaining a multifaceted personality. Mills wrote about a model who attended a media interview in the morning, wearing silver leggings and a pink sweater, looking youthful and outgoing. For a business interview in the afternoon, she had to paint her eyelashes, wear blush, and dress more normally. In other words, individuality is unique in principle, but in reality it must meet the expected standards.

It is not within the remit of models to decide on standards of appearance. I'd like to know who sets these standards: the agency or the client? It may seem that way, but it's not that simple. The simple fact is that neither the agency nor the client knows what the right appearance is. In the face of considerable uncertainty, they must form a mutually dependent relationship and rely on industry gossip, cases, reputation, and conventions to make decisions. Models take chances, and agents ensure that luck is in short supply.

For an agent, personal connections are the first and most important element. He must work hard to establish friendly connections with his clients and gain their trust. This is social capital, and it can be converted into economic benefits. An agent is a strategic socialite, a link between models and clients. The second element is insight. An agent's insight is firmly fixed in a certain field and the possible preferences of a specific type of client. This insight is gained from a specific circle and is undoubtedly influenced by the experience, values and traditions of peers. It is a form of situational knowledge. An agent can only place the right person in the right position at the right time with sufficient contextual knowledge.

The client is another key link. Ultimately, the client decides who to use and who not to use. However, they are also under great pressure when making a choice. Consumer demand is largely unknown, producers in the creative market do not know which models will successfully sell their products, and there is always an oversupply of candidates, who all seem to be more or less the same. They rely on social networks to make their decisions. Photographers want their work to appear in the top fashion magazines. Stylists want to style top models. Show directors want to stage successful shows in New York, London, Paris and Milan. These clients set trends, define the latest looks and gain authority. Fashion trends emerge in a cultural space shared by fashion producers. These producers collectively pursue a similar trend and capture a similar future. If a taste fails to win recognition and followings in this circle, it is meaningless.

When a show director, stylist and photographer discover a look that excites them, they don't keep it to themselves. They spread the word as widely as possible. They must get the whole world to share their excitement. Sometimes they join forces to create a buzz around a new model. They invite her to appear in several major shows at once and ask her to pose for the magazines. The model becomes a highly valuable commodity, and her worth increases exponentially overnight. This is a common phenomenon in speculative markets such as art, fashion and finance. These industries are highly dependent on formal and informal information transmission mechanisms.

Ultimately, it's not about having a unique appearance. It's about the organised and meticulous planning of the producers. Models, agents and various clients all work together and fight with each other. In the midst of this struggle, their belief in appearance is unwavering. They believe in rules and success. This belief is the prerequisite for them to establish themselves in this industry. The fashion industry is an artistic world that demands a belief in the creative spirit. Creatives consciously create themselves and their authority comes from following the trends of the industry because that is what they do. Every success in the fashion industry is a miracle. It is this magic that shapes the ever-changing trends of modern life.

Part 3

You probably know how the fashion model industry works by now, but there's more to it than that. Fashion is a small circle, but it reflects the wider social environment. The class, race and gender it reflects may be beyond your imagination.

Let's start with the class characteristics reflected in the fashion industry. As I stated previously, the styles desired by the high-end fashion industry are a peculiar blend of beauty and ugliness. This is largely because they want to distance themselves from the public's aesthetic tastes. Some contemporary art is deliberately difficult to understand, ugly but highly sought after, and sells for incredible prices. These works of art create an exclusive, closed circle that is not for the public. Artistic value is a defining act that implies power and status. The same is true of media fashion looks.

Media fashion looks unequivocally reject the mass aesthetic. They are designed for high-end fashion consumers and elite producers, who are assumed to have extraordinary cultural literacy and aesthetic ability. These looks are the epitome of elite taste and are indisputably more prestigious than commercial looks and the mass market aesthetic they represent. Models form a group with a clear hierarchy and distinct dress codes. A media fashion model wearing Prada and Gucci is no different from a model wearing department store knitwear. But the labels are different, and that makes all the difference. The social, economic and cultural meanings behind the different labels are completely different, and they show where the model stands in society. The fashion industry is defined by class. Models wearing Prada have class status, and consumers wearing Prada certainly do too.

The fashion industry is also burdened with a heavy historical legacy. Class, race and gender are inextricably linked. The most common high-end look in the fashion industry is that of an extremely thin white model, mainly a female model. Since the 1970s, the number of black and Asian models in high-end fashion has increased, but they are still confined to so-called exotic themes on the catwalks and shoots they participate in. Mills offers a clear explanation for the different status of white and non-white models. During the colonial era, Western culture displayed a fascination with the bodies of non-white women, while non-white men were considered dangerous and pathological. These ideas reinforced the social dominance of white middle-class men. The image of the white woman was thin, pale and delicate, and therefore had to be protected.

This historical baggage also reflects gender and racial inequalities in the images of men and women. The appearance of models is a clear manifestation of this. Fashion reflects consumer trends, cultural tendencies, people's desires and fantasies. It is clear that racial discrimination is still alive and well in the 21st century, despite the fact that it is politically incorrect. There has been no breakthrough in the racial ratio in the modelling industry. This phenomenon is particularly noteworthy. It shows that even if racial discrimination in Western society is no longer expressed openly, racial inequality is deeply rooted in the subconscious of society.

The same is true of gender. The modelling industry is anomalous in that women earn more than men in this profession. Female models earn 25% to 75% more than their male counterparts, without exception. It is not uncommon for a female model to earn two or even three times as much as her male counterpart for the same job. In other industries, men earn more than women. Top supermodels like Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss and the more popular Miranda Kerr and Liu Wen are household names. But who can name a few famous male models? This irrefutably demonstrates that women are more valuable in the modelling industry. Many people therefore say, "Girls, you've won this round. Well done." They believe this success represents a significant advancement for women, but the reality is likely the opposite.

Let's take a negative example. In 1982, Calvin Klein, founder of Calvin Klein, created a new men's underwear line and hired male models to shoot a series of advertisements for the new product. The result was that the male body, clad only in white tight underwear, made its debut in New York's Times Square. Passers-by were compelled to stop and stare in astonishment. If the advertisement had been done with female models, it would not have caused such a stir. Why? The photo shows the male body as an object of sexual desire, which is a first. Conversely, it is conventional to display the female body. Despite the increasing prevalence of advertisements like CK's, the underlying convention remains unchanged. Let me be clear: from a global perspective, in industries such as adult films and erotic services, women also earn significantly more than men. The use and display of bodies in these industries is straightforward, unadorned, and unsophisticated.

It is also worth noting that a significant proportion of gay men are represented in the fashion industry. However, Mills' research proves that some male models have to pretend to be gay to get work opportunities. Most people will tell you that gay men have a stronger sense of fashion and can take into account the different perspectives of both men and women. The fashion industry unites many gay men, and over time, those who are not gay will also feign homosexuality to fit in. However, there is another explanation from a gender theory perspective. It is that the image of gay men, like that of women, emerges as the antithesis of traditional masculinity. Masculinity is typically associated with traits like strength, courage, and determination. This image is not just for show. If a man makes a living by his looks, it's always a bit off because it undermines his personality. In the overall social context, masculinity still dominates and holds power. It drives its opponents into a small space and grants them limited but dazzling success, such as in the fashion industry. It is clear that the power model has remained unchanged in other important social structures such as politics, education and law.

It is clear that the fashion industry has many problems, including racial inequality, the negative social influence of models being too thin, and the closed nature of the industry, which has turned it into a gambling game for a few. Mills also asked these questions of the fashion industry practitioners she interviewed. The majority replied, "I know, but I can't help it. The industry practices just require it." "The white model size 0 is chosen because only they look good in those clothes. There's nothing I can do about it." However, Mills is convinced that although the fashion industry may not be aware of it, it is actually using aesthetics to shift political responsibility and get rid of the heavy historical burden. Once real change occurs in society, this argument will be rendered untenable.

In conclusion, I have reached the end of my interpretation of the book. Mills demonstrates that the fashion industry is a reflection of society, showcasing people's aspirations and challenges, as well as highlighting the complexities and unresolved issues that make it crucial to comprehend it. In summary, the fashion modelling industry is divided into two distinct circles: media models and commercial models. They correspond to the two sets of operating logics of art and commerce, respectively, and are expressed through different products – namely, the appearance of the model. Commerce needs the credibility of art, and art needs the nourishment of commerce. This is the basic mechanism of the fashion industry.

2. Fashion production is highly ambiguous and uncertain. Beauty does not belong to the model or the onlooker. The value of appearance is determined by a series of social relationships and cultural connotations. Fashion relies on gossip in a complex situation, relying on formal and informal information sharing mechanisms.

3. The production process of a fashionable appearance reflects the fundamental situation of a society. The fashion model circle shows a high degree of class, racial and gender inequality, which shows that these historical problems still exist in mainstream culture.